I know many elderly people who have a very difficult time distinguishing consensual same-sex relations and relationships, particularly between two men, and pedophilia. I wonder if Hsuan Hua's comments might make more sense if taken in this context, as an admonition against raping boys through the broader category of homosexuality.

This approach would make rhetorical sense if pedophilia is a subject the master could not address in more direct or specific language, perhaps due to social taboo. I don't know if that's the case; I'm ignorant of contemporary Chinese culture generally and Chinese attitudes on this subject in particular.

/speculating

Jikan; You are quite mistaken. It's all about conservative Confucian family values. I attended a Fo Guan temple in my area for a while, which is basically entirely Chinese. One of the most difficult social problems I had there, was a very kind older woman who'd give me a lift to the temple. She knew I was in my 40's single & tried to fix me up with her gay son. This happened all the time in China; and today you can still see Indian matrimonial adverts on gay sites for a 'white' marriage : gay girl + gay guy = no sex to satisfy social convention. She knew, she was no fool. I left Fo Guang as I really am a Nichiren Buddhist, but I can't tell you the social relief I felt joining a Japanese sect. It's the 2nd gen of Chinese-Americans, Indian-Americans etc who have to change the culture.

Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu
Chih-I:
The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority
Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58https://www.tendai-usa.org/

Soon in North America it won't be an issue. Discrimination against homosexuals was a not even acceptable in the(Canadian) Army. We didn't tell some of the older guys about a marriage on base though. That generation is quickly disappearing if you know what I mean. After that there will be very few drawbacks to being gay. The old "disturbing the channels" argument rings rather hollow compared to things that disturb them much more like arguing with your spouse over the credit card bill or flirting with a coworker.

undefineable wrote:Sorry I over-reacted -On further reading, it seems this guy is clearly preaching a-dharma-

I can't help but laugh at some of the comments on this board. Before you all throw your hands up in the air and run around frantically bashing the Venerable Master Hua for his words, many of you do not even know the context in which this was said and why it was said. Let me just start off by stating that the Venerable Master Hua was an extremely compassionate teacher towards all living beings regardless of gender, race, or sexuality. He, himself, had disciples and followers who were homosexual and never did he bash them behind their backs or in their face, he simply counseled them the same way he would with any other disciple of his. What were his instructions? To end love and desire.

The Venerable Master only condemned the 'act' of homosexuality--in other words, oral and anal sex. However, this is not something that he pulled out of thin air. Abhidharma texts also state that these acts defile one's pure conduct and they certainly do violate the precept of sexual misconduct. Within the Mahayana tradition, sutras such as the Brahma net sutra also state that homosexual acts violate the bodhisattva's conduct.

Many of you now a days hear a Chinese Master preach about homosexuality and if they are against it, you all frantically sneer at him and begin questioning his realizations. But when someone like the Dalai Lama or Karmapa makes a comment about homosexuality, you all gasp a little but let it go with ease. So many of you have such negative views about the Chinese Mahayana tradition, you start thinking that these Chinese masters were racist and that they hated Tibetans, none of which you can even back up your claims for since you did not even know these Masters personally.

Let me just relate an incident where the Venerable Master met with a gay male who was HIV positive. This man was extremely ill and begged and pleaded with the Master to help him. Master Hua did not let him down. He instructed this man to sincerely recite the Great Compassion Mantra and to truly bring fourth a repentful heart, and soon he will be well again. This man later related a dream where Master Hua had appeared in his dream and counseled him and healed him, in which to his surprise, when he woke up his disease was gone. If the Master hated homosexuals, do you think he would have gone out of his ways to meet someone who was homosexual and even use his time and effort to counsel and heal this man? I'll let you people think about that. This was just one incident out of many.

Those of you who were not able to draw near Master Hua would never know the boundless compassion he had for living beings. Sure, he was an extremely stern teacher who was very straightforward, and perhaps outright 'in-your-face' so to speak, but never did he discriminate between living beings. He spoke what needed to be heard and wasn't afraid of what people were going to say. You don't think he knew that in this day and age, being against homosexual acts would open oneself to slander and hate? He knew very well the outcome his words and the impact it would have on society, but he nonetheless said it because it needed to be heard. He fully knew the cause and effect of things and only spoke words that would benefit sentient beings.

Having taking a course on Tibetan Buddhism at my University, one of the topics that came up was sexuality and gender within Tibetan Buddhism. To my understanding, the Dalai Lama and Karmapa have spoken about acts of homosexuality as being unacceptable and perverted. So, why haven't you people started a huge thread on this and questioned HHDL and Karmapa's realizations? When Karmapa was in Taiwan, someone in the audience did ask about homosexuality and to everyone's surprise Karmapa advised against the acts as they defile tantric practice. Perhaps the words in which they used were of a lighter scale than what Master Hua initially said, but nonetheless, these eminent Masters are not afraid of speaking against something that should not be done when seriously cultivating the Buddha-dharma.

Society nowadays is so accepting when it comes to homosexual acts that so many of you are so glued to the fact that homosexual acts are the norm and that it is 'okay', but once someone stands up and says it's not okay, you all wave your red flag and denounce these masters right away simply because what they state goes against what you believe. At the end of the day, you're all protecting your own egos from being hurt, and only self-seeking something that you want for yourself. So much for renunciation, and leaving birth and death, eh?

remm wrote:To my understanding, the Dalai Lama and Karmapa have spoken about acts of homosexuality as being unacceptable and perverted. So, why haven't you people started a huge thread on this and questioned HHDL and Karmapa's realizations? When Karmapa was in Taiwan, someone in the audience did ask about homosexuality and to everyone's surprise Karmapa advised against the acts as they defile tantric practice.

Leaving aside the whole Chinese versus Tibet thing, it is the case that teachers all round are all more conservative on matters like this than we care to admit. Somebody asked one of my teachers a question about abortion and the answer he gave shocked pretty much most of the audience.

I got no horse in this race 'cept space, radiance, love.

I'll give anyone a quarter soon as I figure out how to get one myself.

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Leaving aside the whole Chinese versus Tibet thing, it is the case that teachers all round are all more conservative on matters like this than we care to admit. Somebody asked one of my teachers a question about abortion and the answer he gave shocked pretty much most of the audience.

I think the traditions that maintain staunch conservative beliefs will not do as well as compared to potentially more inclusive traditions.

How foolish you are,
grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
- Vasubandhu

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Leaving aside the whole Chinese versus Tibet thing, it is the case that teachers all round are all more conservative on matters like this than we care to admit. Somebody asked one of my teachers a question about abortion and the answer he gave shocked pretty much most of the audience.

I think the traditions that maintain staunch conservative beliefs will not do as well as compared to potentially more inclusive traditions.

"Doing well" - now there is a Dharmic principle - popularity.

Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!Manjushri-namasamgiti

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Leaving aside the whole Chinese versus Tibet thing, it is the case that teachers all round are all more conservative on matters like this than we care to admit. Somebody asked one of my teachers a question about abortion and the answer he gave shocked pretty much most of the audience.

I think the traditions that maintain staunch conservative beliefs will not do as well as compared to potentially more inclusive traditions.

"Doing well" - now there is a Dharmic principle - popularity.

What it means Will, is that staunch conservative Dharma teachers lack the skillful means to deal with "issues" like homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, etc. If they don't adapt, they will end up like every other ultra conservative religious group - they will ostracize people and end up getting ostracized. The degenerate age isn't a one way street - along with people having more afflictions, we also have less capable Dharma teachers.

How foolish you are,
grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
- Vasubandhu

Mr. G wrote:
What it means Will, is that staunch conservative Dharma teachers lack the skillful means to deal with "issues" like homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, etc. If they don't adapt, they will end up like every other ultra conservative religious group - they will ostracize people and end up getting ostracized. The degenerate age isn't a one way street - along with people having more afflictions, we also have less capable Dharma teachers.

Baloney. The Dharma has always been "conservative".

We do not need teachers with 'skillful means' as much as students & disciples who will not toss aside as 'conservative' or 'cultural trappings' or 'offensive' what their guru or lama teaches. Putting the cravings of modern society ahead of the traditional Path, will only result in zero Sages, Arhats & Bodhisattvas and oodles of Dharma lite hacks.

Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!Manjushri-namasamgiti

We do not need teachers with 'skillful means' as much as students & disciples who will not toss aside as 'conservative' or 'cultural trappings' or 'offensive' what their guru or lama teaches. Putting the cravings of modern society ahead of the traditional Path, will only result in zero Sages, Arhats & Bodhisattvas and oodles of Dharma lite hacks.

You're dodging the question Will. In degenerate times, we already know that people have more afflictions. The question is, how will Dharma teachers skillfully deal with this without ostracizing people. An example of good skillful means is Chogyal Namkhai Norbu who asks that people "do their best". He is not turning people away from the Dharma. Another example is Jodo Shinshu where they welcome homosexuals and now perform weddings. Jodo Shu and Nichiren Buddhism also are quite progressive. An effort should be made to connect people with Dharma to the best of their capabilities. If someone is a drunk, we shouldn't turn them away, but help them. If someone had an abortion, we shouldn't scold and berate them, but assist them. It's not Dharma lite, it's using the best means available to help people fit within Buddhism given their limitations.

How foolish you are,
grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
- Vasubandhu

Mr. G wrote:
What it means Will, is that staunch conservative Dharma teachers lack the skillful means to deal with "issues" like homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, etc. If they don't adapt, they will end up like every other ultra conservative religious group - they will ostracize people and end up getting ostracized. The degenerate age isn't a one way street - along with people having more afflictions, we also have less capable Dharma teachers.

Baloney. The Dharma has always been "conservative".

We do not need teachers with 'skillful means' as much as students & disciples who will not toss aside as 'conservative' or 'cultural trappings' or 'offensive' what their guru or lama teaches. Putting the cravings of modern society ahead of the traditional Path, will only result in zero Sages, Arhats & Bodhisattvas and oodles of Dharma lite hacks.

This is true. Nowadays people put their own cravings and own interpretation of the 'dharma' before anything else. You all pick and choose what you want to hear. When you hear something that is harsh and bitter you immediately throw it away, and you chase after the things that satisfies your own self-seeking. The Chinese saying goes, "The bitter melon is hard to swallow but good for the health."

Many of you think this the 'greater vehicle' the all encompassing vehicle that is compassionate, and inclusive--well it is. We aren't 'hinayana' in our thinking, it is just that the truth of the dharma is the way it is, what many of you are trying to do is fool yourselves into thinking a flower is a tree, but no matter how hard you try to convince yourselves--the flower stays a flower. In the degenerate age these things are much harder to accept simply because too many people are too accustomed to societies upbringings and changes. What you have to understand is that by taking short cuts and not understanding the truth of the matter will only result in little realization since you cling so much to your own egotistical cravings and refuse to change your mindset.

Whether people want to accept these teachings or not is up to them. If they find it offensive and are turned away by it, then fine--their good roots were insufficient so they cannot listen or hear the truth of the matter. You have to start examining your own ideologies if they start to contradict what eminent masters have said. If HHDL, Karmapa, Ven. Hsuan Hua, Chin Kung state that the act of homosexuality is prohibited, then you might want to reevaluate your own ideas and perceptions about this. Firstly, who are you to question what these teachers have taught, and have you even attained a single realization beyond them? If not, why do you insist that they are wrong simply because what they said goes against your own interpretation of Buddhism?

On a side note, from previous posters, it's a wise and noble act to not slander others, especially Buddhist Masters who have dedicated their lives in propagation of Buddhism. If you don't agree with a certain teaching, I heard it's a mindful act to keep quiet and carry on rather than to slander and throw insults at these Masters. You're not doing them a favor, but yourself a huge favor. Stop spitting in your own faces and save yourself from heinous negative karma. Just a thought.

remm wrote:
The Venerable Master only condemned the 'act' of homosexuality--in other words, oral and anal sex. However, this is not something that he pulled out of thin air. Abhidharma texts also state that these acts defile one's pure conduct and they certainly do violate the precept of sexual misconduct.

This probably reflects influences from Brahmanism more than anything else.

remm wrote:
The Venerable Master only condemned the 'act' of homosexuality--in other words, oral and anal sex. However, this is not something that he pulled out of thin air. Abhidharma texts also state that these acts defile one's pure conduct and they certainly do violate the precept of sexual misconduct.

This probably reflects influences from Brahmanism more than anything else.

And what? So, suddenly if there is an influence from Brahmanism this suddenly makes a teaching wrong or inadequate to the Buddhist audience?
I think the notion of purity is something that most religions have in common with, and it makes sense.

Mr. G wrote:The question is, how will Dharma teachers skillfully deal with this without ostracizing people. An example of good skillful means is Chogyal Namkhai Norbu who asks that people "do their best". He is not turning people away from the Dharma.

Ven. Hua had many students, and was able to establish over a half dozen monasteries and a Buddhist university, as well as initiate the training of translators to translate a number of important sūtras.

remm wrote:The Venerable Master only condemned the 'act' of homosexuality--in other words, oral and anal sex.

No he didn't - In his referenced writings he was quite clear that anyone 'abnormal' (presumably in any way - see my earlier posts) is 'bad' by nature of their being - necessarily implying essential existence, i.e. that there is an essential self that is essentially 'bad' and therefore generates homosexual desires and so on. What makes desires for homosexual/anal/oral sex 'bad' is not explained clearly, but let's all remember that in the days before 'safe sex', there was a clear risk of disease -not to mention unhappy marriages (marriage being expected)- attached to following through on such urges. From a monastic point of view, moreover, homosexuality is a no-no for obvious reasons. I'd also like to introduce the sense of cognitive splitting that we all feel (but few seem to have noticed) when contemplating two completely different things, such as male and female, gay and straight, or (in my case) autistic and born-normal. The feeling is of being split between two separate, self-contained realities, naturally inducing resentment at the fact that such differences exist between human beings.

However, I notice that Mandarin Chinese, being so different to my 1'st language, seems to be a difficult language to translate into English, so with the associated lack of a common ancestral culture within the last 10K years or so (such as the Indo-European) taken into account, I suspect that the implied meaning in English is different to the meaning you found in this (apparently acknowledged) Master's words.

On the subject of linguistic and cultural differences, you rightly explain this:

remm wrote:Many of you now a days hear a Chinese Master preach about homosexuality and if they are against it, you all frantically sneer at him and begin questioning his realizations. But when someone like the Dalai Lama or Karmapa makes a comment about homosexuality, you all gasp a little but let it go with ease.

and this

remm wrote:When Karmapa was in Taiwan, someone in the audience did ask about homosexuality and to everyone's surprise Karmapa advised against the acts as they defile tantric practice.

by means of this:

remm wrote:Sure, he was an extremely stern teacher who was very straightforward, and perhaps outright 'in-your-face' so to speak

and this:

remm wrote:Perhaps the words in which they used were of a lighter scale than what Master Hua initially said

, highlighting the difference between languages/cultures which include overstatement (such as Arabic and -presumeably- Chinese) and those that make use of understatement (such as English and -presumeably- Chinese).

As far as China-bashing goes, it's a bit early to expect this from anyone who doesn't fully support America as the current sole superpower (i.e. anyone who isn't a Republican-voting American) - The rising superpower, remaining 'fresh' and somewhat mysterious in the eyes of the rest of the world seems likely to enjoy a 'honeymoon period' on its ascendance, simply owing to the fact that it isn't America (or Russia).

remm wrote:So many of you have such negative views about the Chinese Mahayana tradition, you start thinking that these Chinese masters were racist and that they hated Tibetans, none of which you can even back up your claims for since you did not even know these Masters personally.

I agree with some previous replies that the greater degree of monasticism in Chinese Buddhism likely explains Hsuan's more flippant-sounding comments about Tibetan lamas. I did notice, though, a distinctly Mantric/'Pure Land' feel to what I read of Hsuan's teachings, and would add that myself and other Buddhists are probably just as suspicious of that tradition (which can appear more like Christianity at first glance) as Hsuan and still-other Buddhists are of Vajrayana. However, I see plenty of reasons to keep this to the level of musing as opposed to preaching, since if others are on a less-efficient Path, that's their business alone. {Also, I can't see how 'Pure Land' Buddhism could be harmful.} I certainly don't think Chinese 'hate' Tibetans any more than the English hate the Welsh {Wales has officially been part of England since 1536 }

remm wrote:Society nowadays is so accepting when it comes to homosexual acts that so many of you are so glued to the fact that homosexual acts are the norm and that it is 'okay', but once someone stands up and says it's not okay, you all wave your red flag and denounce these masters right away simply because what they state goes against what you believe. At the end of the day, you're all protecting your own egos from being hurt, and only self-seeking something that you want for yourself. So much for renunciation, and leaving birth and death, eh?

Given what I said, 'homosexual acts' weren't really OK in ages past, but are OK now if you use a strong condom and don't belong to a same-sex community like an army or an abbey. I can't see how anyone can argue otherwise without an appeal to atman. FYI, I suspect that one of the main attractions of Buddhism is that it does protect one's ego from being hurt - by denying that such an ego can possibly exist. How can one renounce death (as well as birth) if one feels that the fabric of their own being is eternally evil?

remm wrote:He knew very well the outcome his words and the impact it would have on society, but he nonetheless said it because it needed to be heard. He fully knew the cause and effect of things and only spoke words that would benefit sentient beings.

I can't see the balance here - How can sentient beings benefit if they've all been put off Buddhadharma by an image that projects hatred and condemnation of all mental differences between human beings? I suspect this goes back to translation again. In reply to later comments, I don't see that Buddhism has anything to do with what is normally seen as 'conservatism' or 'modern-ism' or any other political movement, but like all successful spiritual movements it has always adapted to and accepted its environment, hence its apparent 'conservatism'. For example, many Buddhist teachers have made it clear that abortion is indeed problematic from a Buddhist point of view, but have been careful to clarify that it's not as bad as murder (albeit nearly) and even that prayers can be said for the 'wandering being' directly affected. {Sorry I can't find the source}.

undefineable wrote:Sorry I over-reacted -On further reading, it seems this guy is clearly preaching a-dharma-

I can't help but laugh at some of the comments on this board. Before you all throw your hands up in the air and run around frantically bashing the Venerable Master Hua for his words, many of you do not even know the context in which this was said and why it was said. Let me just start off by stating that the Venerable Master Hua was an extremely compassionate teacher towards all living beings regardless of gender, race, or sexuality. He, himself, had disciples and followers who were homosexual and never did he bash them behind their backs or in their face, he simply counseled them the same way he would with any other disciple of his. What were his instructions? To end love and desire.

The Venerable Master only condemned the 'act' of homosexuality--in other words, oral and anal sex. However, this is not something that he pulled out of thin air. Abhidharma texts also state that these acts defile one's pure conduct and they certainly do violate the precept of sexual misconduct. Within the Mahayana tradition, sutras such as the Brahma net sutra also state that homosexual acts violate the bodhisattva's conduct.

Many of you now a days hear a Chinese Master preach about homosexuality and if they are against it, you all frantically sneer at him and begin questioning his realizations. But when someone like the Dalai Lama or Karmapa makes a comment about homosexuality, you all gasp a little but let it go with ease. So many of you have such negative views about the Chinese Mahayana tradition, you start thinking that these Chinese masters were racist and that they hated Tibetans, none of which you can even back up your claims for since you did not even know these Masters personally.

Let me just relate an incident where the Venerable Master met with a gay male who was HIV positive. This man was extremely ill and begged and pleaded with the Master to help him. Master Hua did not let him down. He instructed this man to sincerely recite the Great Compassion Mantra and to truly bring fourth a repentful heart, and soon he will be well again. This man later related a dream where Master Hua had appeared in his dream and counseled him and healed him, in which to his surprise, when he woke up his disease was gone. If the Master hated homosexuals, do you think he would have gone out of his ways to meet someone who was homosexual and even use his time and effort to counsel and heal this man? I'll let you people think about that. This was just one incident out of many.

Those of you who were not able to draw near Master Hua would never know the boundless compassion he had for living beings. Sure, he was an extremely stern teacher who was very straightforward, and perhaps outright 'in-your-face' so to speak, but never did he discriminate between living beings. He spoke what needed to be heard and wasn't afraid of what people were going to say. You don't think he knew that in this day and age, being against homosexual acts would open oneself to slander and hate? He knew very well the outcome his words and the impact it would have on society, but he nonetheless said it because it needed to be heard. He fully knew the cause and effect of things and only spoke words that would benefit sentient beings.

Having taking a course on Tibetan Buddhism at my University, one of the topics that came up was sexuality and gender within Tibetan Buddhism. To my understanding, the Dalai Lama and Karmapa have spoken about acts of homosexuality as being unacceptable and perverted. So, why haven't you people started a huge thread on this and questioned HHDL and Karmapa's realizations? When Karmapa was in Taiwan, someone in the audience did ask about homosexuality and to everyone's surprise Karmapa advised against the acts as they defile tantric practice. Perhaps the words in which they used were of a lighter scale than what Master Hua initially said, but nonetheless, these eminent Masters are not afraid of speaking against something that should not be done when seriously cultivating the Buddha-dharma.

Society nowadays is so accepting when it comes to homosexual acts that so many of you are so glued to the fact that homosexual acts are the norm and that it is 'okay', but once someone stands up and says it's not okay, you all wave your red flag and denounce these masters right away simply because what they state goes against what you believe. At the end of the day, you're all protecting your own egos from being hurt, and only self-seeking something that you want for yourself. So much for renunciation, and leaving birth and death, eh?

I don't know about the Karmapa's statements, and would like to know the actual quotes and context. However, the Dalai lama was referring to the proscriptions on oral and anal sex in the ancient texts. This includes heterosexual's oral and anal sex. I don't recall the Dalai Lama using the word "perverted."

Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche did not share the perspective of these lamas on this issue. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that most of the main lineage holders of the Nyingma lineage are supportive of non-monastic people having any kind of consensual sexual conduct they wish.

Mr. G wrote:The question is, how will Dharma teachers skillfully deal with this without ostracizing people. An example of good skillful means is Chogyal Namkhai Norbu who asks that people "do their best". He is not turning people away from the Dharma.

Ven. Hua had many students, and was able to establish over a half dozen monasteries and a Buddhist university, as well as initiate the training of translators to translate a number of important sūtras.

Yes, he did. I just think there may be another way to approach things.

How foolish you are,
grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
- Vasubandhu

remm wrote:I think the notion of purity is something that most religions have in common with, and it makes sense.

Buddhist 'purity' is different - It refers to freedom from imputed inherent existence; you can find ample references here and elsewhere if you didn't already know this.

remm wrote:the truth of the dharma is the way it is, what many of you are trying to do is fool yourselves into thinking a flower is a tree, but no matter how hard you try to convince yourselves--the flower stays a flower.

Once again, a flower isn't ultimately either a flower or anything else according to Buddha; the truth of dharma is said to be beyond particular ways of being, including the very concepts of dharma - Have you heard the 'finger pointing at the moon' analogy?

In English, 'prohibited' necessarily implies a binding legal code, the vinaya (which ofcourse prohibits all sexual practices for monastics) for example. The five lay precepts are no such code to my understanding, and in any case, many here who've taken Refuge may not have taken all of them {I only took the 1'st, for example} - C.f. Sharia.

remm wrote:Firstly, who are you to question what these teachers have taught, and have you even attained a single realization beyond them?

I don't particularly question what I've read and heard of what the 1'st two taught, and haven't heard of Chin Kung, but then there's that Kalama sutra us Westerners keep quoting from - In proper (Buddhist) use, though, questioning is about investigating how a teaching could be true, rather than rejecting it outright (which is what the word 'questioning' can imply).

remm wrote:On a side note, from previous posters, it's a wise and noble act to not slander others, especially Buddhist Masters who have dedicated their lives in propagation of Buddhism. If you don't agree with a certain teaching, I heard it's a mindful act to keep quiet and carry on rather than to slander and throw insults at these Masters. You're not doing them a favor, but yourself a huge favor. Stop spitting in your own faces and save yourself from heinous negative karma.

I can take it - It's no worse than what any of the rest of us have experienced for some stretch of beginningless time, and can't be much worse than what I'm dealing with in this life. If the outcome of this thread tips one being over the edge from "don't trust those hateful Buddhists" (atfirst) to "carry on investigating", then it's worth it, no? In any case, I don't think anyone's gone bannably far - Slander is something you throw at a person (as in 'ad hoiminem argument'); to insult an opinion is not the same as insulting a person unless you do both at once (which isn't hard to do ). Even if Hsuan Hua is completely unenlightened (which I doubt), I've already made it clear how much I identify with the conflicts he might then have presented in his teachings, and would wish him none but the best on his path to liberation.

Last edited by undefineable on Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:24 am, edited 2 times in total.